You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

L-50264 October 21, 1991


IGNACIO WONG, petitioner,
vs.
HON. LUCAS D. CARPIO, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of
Davao del Sur, Branch V and MANUEL MERCADO, respondents.
Rodolfo B. Quiachon for petitioner.
Jose M. Ilagan for private respondent.
BIDIN, J.:p
This is a petition for review on certiorari, certified to this Court by the Court of
Appeals as it involves purely question of law, seeking the annulment of the
September 29, 1978 decision of the then Court of First Instance ** of Davao del
Sur, Branch V, in Civil Case No. 1258 which reversed the February 20, 1978
decision of the Municipal Court of Sta. Maria, *** Davao del Sur in an action for
Forcible Entry (Civil Case No. 13) ordering the dismissal of the complaint as well as
the counterclaim.
The undisputed facts of this case, as found by both the trial court and the then
Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur, are as follows:
On the basis of the admission of parties in their respective pleadings, the oral
testimonies of all witnesses for both plaintiff and defendants and the documentary
evidence offered and admitted this Court finds that plaintiff Manuel Mercado
acquired his rights to possess the land in litigation, particularly lot 3 (LRC) Pcs-295,
(situated at Colonga, Sta. Maria, Davao del Sur) and which is particularly described
and embraced in Transfer Certificate of title No. (T-4244) T-972 from William Giger
by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase which was executed in 1972 for
a consideration of P3,500.00 (testimony of plaintiff, T.S.N., p. 3, hearing of January
7, 1977). Then, in 1973, William Giger again asked an additional amount of
P2,500.00 from plaintiff and so he required William Giger to sign a new deed of
Pacto de Retro Sale (Exhibit "A") on November 5,1973 at Davao City before Notary
Public Gregorio C. Batiller (T.S.N., p. 5, hearing of January 7, 1977). In 1972,
plaintiff began harvesting only the coconut fruits and he paid the taxes on the land
(Exhibits B to E) for Mr. Giger. He went periodically to the land to make copra but
he never placed any person on the land in litigation to watch it. Neither did he
reside on the land as he is a businessman and storekeeper by occupation and
resides at Lower Sta. Maria, Davao del Sur while the land in litigation is at
Colongan, Sta. Maria. Neither did he put any sign or hut to show that he is in
actual possession (p. 8, T.S.N., p. 7, hearing of January 14, 1978). He knew
defendants' laborers were in the land in suit as early as August, 1976 and that
they have a hut there but he did not do anything to stop them. Instead plaintiff
was happy that there were people and a hut on the land in suit (p. 14, T.S.N.,
hearing of January 14, 1978).
Before July, 1976, defendant Ignacio Wong went to the land in litigation to find out
if there were other people residing there or claiming it besides the owner and he
found none. So, in July, 1976, defendant Ignacio Wong bought the parcel of land in
litigation from William Giger and his wife Cecilia Valenzuela (Exhibit 5). After the
execution of Exhibit 5, defendant Ignacio Wong asked for the delivery of the title to
him and so he has in his possession TCT No. (T-4244) T-974 (Exhibit 6) in the name
of William Giger. Mr. Wong declared the land in suit for taxation purposes in his
name (Exhibit 7). He tried to register the pacto de retro sale with the Register of
Deeds by paying the registration fee (Exhibit 8) but due to some technicalities, the
pacto de retro sale could not be registered. The defendant Wong placed laborers
on the land in suit, built a small farm house after making some clearings and
fenced the boundaries. He also placed signboards (T.S.N., pp. 14-15, hearing of
September 15, 1977). On September 27, 1976, plaintiff Manuel Mercado again
went to the land in suit to make copras. That was the time the matter was brought
to the attention of the police of Sta. Maria, Davao del Sur and the incident entered
in the police blotter (Exhibit 11). Then on November 18, 1976, defendant Wong
ordered the hooking of the coconuts from the land in litigation and nobody
disturbed him. But on November 29, 1976, defendant received a copy of plaintiff's
complaint for forcible entry with summons to answer which is the case now before
the Court. During the pendency of this instant complaint for forcible entry, spouses
William Giger and Cecilia Valenzuela filed a case for reformation of instrument with
the Court of First Instance of Digos, Davao del Sur against plaintiff Mercado
(Exhibit 4). The case pertains to Exhibit "A" of plaintiff. (pp. 1-3, CA Decision, pp.

82-84, Rollo).
On the basis of the aforestated undisputed facts, the Municipal Court of Sta. Maria,
Davao del Sur in its February 20, 1978 Decision found that herein petitioner
(defendant Ignacio Wong) had prior, actual and continuous physical possession of
the disputed property and dismissed both the complaint and the counter-claim.
On appeal, the then Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur, in its September 29,
1978 Decision drew a completely different conclusion from the same set of facts
and ruled in favor of herein private respondent (plaintiff Manuel Mercado). The
decretal portion of the said decision, reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the plaintiff to have taken possession of the
property earlier in point of time and defendant is an intruder and must, as he
is hereby ordered to return, the possession of the land in question for the
plaintiff, paying a monthly rental of P400.00 from August, 1976, till the
property is returned with costs against the defendant. Judgment is reversed.
Petitioner filed the instant petition with the Court of Appeals. But the Court of
Appeals, in its March 1, 1979 Resolution **** found that the only issue is a pure
question of law the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the undisputed
facts and certified the case to this Court.
In its April 4, 1979 Resolution, the Second Division of this Court docketed the case
in this Court and considered it submitted for decision.
Petitioner alleged two (2) errors committed by respondent judge, to wit:
A) THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY RESPONDENT JUDGE THAT PETITIONER IS AN
INTRUDER IS WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS FOR PURPOSES OF A FORCIBLE
ENTRY.
B) THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY RESPONDENT JUDGE THAT PETITIONER MUST PAY
A MONTHLY RENTAL OF P400.00 FROM AUGUST, 1976 TILL THE PROPERTY IS
RETURNED HAS NO LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS.
The petition is without merit.
Petitioner, in claiming that the private respondent has not established prior
possession, argues that private respondent's periodic visit to the lot to gather
coconuts may have been consented to and allowed or tolerated by the owner
thereof for the purposes of paying an obligation that may be due to the person
gathering said nuts and that a person who enters a property to gather coconut
fruits and convert the same to copras may only be a hired laborer who enters the
premises every harvest season to comply with the contract of labor with the true
owner of the property.
The argument is untenable.
It should be stressed that "possession is acquired by the material occupation of a
thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our
will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities for acquiring such right." (Art. 531,
Civil Code; Rizal Cement Co., Inc. vs. Villareal, 135 SCRA 15 [1985]); and that the
execution of a sale thru a public instrument shall be equivalent to the delivery of
the thing, unless there is stipulation to the contrary . . . . If, however,
notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the purchaser cannot have the
enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and make use of it herself, because
such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by another, then delivery has not been
effected. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1989 Ed., p. 400).
Applying the above pronouncements on the instant case, it is clear that possession
passed from vendor William Giger to private respondent Manuel Mercado by virtue
of the first sale a retro (Exhibit A), and accordingly, the later sale a retro (Exhibit 5)
in favor of petitioner failed to pass the possession of the property because there is
an impediment the possession exercised by private respondent. Possession as a
fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in
the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of
possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two possessions,
the one longer in possession, if the dates of possession are the same, the one who
presents a title; and if these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in
judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through
proper proceedings (Art. 538, Civil Code).
As to petitioner's query that "Is the entry of petitioner to the property

characterized by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth in order to show


that private respondent has had possession so that the case is within the
jurisdiction of the inferior court?" (p. 15, Petition; p. 16, Rollo). The same is
answered in the affirmative.
The act of entering the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom
necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and this is all that is
necessary. Under the rule, entering upon the premises by strategy or stealth is
equally as obnoxious as entering by force. The foundation of the action is really
the forcible exclusion of the original possessor by a person who has entered
without right. The words "by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth"
include every situation or condition under which one person can wrongfully enter
upon real property and exclude another who has had prior possession therefrom. If
a trespasser enters upon land in open daylight, under the very eyes of person
already clothed with lawful possession, but without the consent of the latter, and
there plants himself and excludes such prior possessor from the property, the
action of forcible entry and detainer can unquestionably be maintained, even
though no force is used by the trespasser other than such as is necessarily implied
from the mere acts of planting himself on the ground and excluding the other
party. (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1983 Ed., pp. 243-244; Drilon
vs. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 342 [1987]).
Anent the award of rentals in favor of private respondent, the same is in order.
Petitioner's argument that there is no legal or factual basis for the payment of
monthly rentals because bad faith on the part of petitioner was never proved
deserves no merit.
It should be noted that possession acquired in good faith does not lose this
character except in the case and from the moment facts exist which show that the
possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully.
(Art. 528, Civil Code).
Possession in good faith ceases from the moment defects in the title are made
known to the possessors, by extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery of the
property by the true owner. Whatever may be the cause or the fact from which it
can be deduced that the possessor has knowledge of the defects of his title or
mode of acquisition, it must be considered sufficient to show bad faith. (Tolentino,
Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, p. 226). Such interruption takes place upon
service of summons (Manotok Realty vs. Judge Tecson, 164 SCRA 587 [1988] citing
Mindanao Academy, Inc. v. Yap (13 SCRA 190 [1965]). In the latter case, this Court
held:
. . . Although the bad faith of one party neutralizes that of the other and hence
as between themselves their rights would be as if both of them had acted in
good faith at the time of the transaction, this legal fiction of Yap's good faith
ceased when the complaint against him was filed, and consequently the
court's declaration of liability for the rents thereafter is correct and proper. A
possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits only so long as his possession is
not legally interrupted, and such interruption takes place upon service of
judicial summons (Arts. 544 and 1123, Civil Code).
A perusal of the records of the case shows that petitioner received private
respondent's complaint for forcible entry with summons on November 29, 1976
(Rollo, p. 46). His good faith therefore ceased on November 29,1976. Accordingly,
the computation of the payment of monthly rental should start from December,
1976, instead of August, 1976.
WHEREFORE, with the modification that the computation of the monthly rental
should start from December, 1976 instead of August, 1976, the September 29,
1978 decision of respondent judge is Affirmed in all other respects, with costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

You might also like